feat: add number/float16/base/to-float32

[gururaj1512]

Resolves None

Description

What is the purpose of this pull request?

This pull request:

• feat: add number/float16/base/to-float32

Related Issues

Does this pull request have any related issues?

This pull request has the following related issues:

• None

Questions

Any questions for reviewers of this pull request?

No.

Other

Any other information relevant to this pull request? This may include screenshots, references, and/or implementation notes.

No.

Checklist

Please ensure the following tasks are completed before submitting this pull request.

• Read, understood, and followed the contributing guidelines.

AI Assistance

When authoring the changes proposed in this PR, did you use any kind of AI assistance?

• Yes
• No

If you answered "yes" above, how did you use AI assistance?

• Code generation (e.g., when writing an implementation or fixing a bug)
• Test/benchmark generation
• Documentation (including examples)
• Research and understanding

Disclosure

If you answered "yes" to using AI assistance, please provide a short disclosure indicating how you used AI assistance. This helps reviewers determine how much scrutiny to apply when reviewing your contribution. Example disclosures: "This PR was written primarily by Claude Code." or "I consulted ChatGPT to understand the codebase, but the proposed changes were fully authored manually by myself.".

{{TODO: add disclosure if applicable}}

---

@stdlib-js/reviewers

[gururaj1512]

/stdlib merge

[stdlib-bot]

Coverage Report

Package	Statements	Branches	Functions	Lines
number/float16/base/to-float32	$\color{green}138/138$ $\color{green}+0.00%$	$\color{green}5/5$ $\color{green}+0.00%$	$\color{green}2/2$ $\color{green}+0.00%$	$\color{green}138/138$ $\color{green}+0.00%$

The above coverage report was generated for the changes in this PR.

[kgryte]

Would it make more sense to use float64_to_float16 here given that we are sending down a double from JavaScript?

[gururaj1512]

This is possible. But float64 to float16 conversion would carry a lot of overhead. Infact, I am thinking of implementing float64_to_float16 as

stdlib_float16_t stdlib_base_float64_to_float16( const double value ) {
	return stdlib_base_float32_to_float16( (float)value );
}

In float64 to float16 conversion we have to handle both mahtissaHigh and mantissaLow this creates lot of complexity.

[kgryte]

Seems reasonable. And just for sanity checking, which I think we already did, but just to triple check: float64_to_float16 === float32_to_float16 in terms of final output, correct? In which case, yes, makes sense.

[gururaj1512]

We did sanity check but for the JS implementation. C implementation for float64_to_float16 is not yet added.

[gururaj1512]

I have used float64_to_float16 and this also works well here. With what approach should we move forward. According to me current approach seems more straight forward to me.

[kgryte]

Fine to leave as is. The reality is that calling through native.js is only used for testing, so perf isn't an overriding concern. Main concern is that the two implementations are interchangeable in this particular case and return the same results.

[kgryte]

A few minor comments. Otherwise, this is looking good.

[gururaj1512]

/stdlib merge